CosmicJoghurt
New Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
Elvis didn't dew no draawgs!
C0NSUM3R0F3V0FL35H said:
Elvis didn't dew no draawgs!
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Dawkins
- Thread starter Mithcoriel
- Start date
thefusilier
New Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
Regarding the nylon eating bacteria, can anyone counter this...
"These bacteria, just like any other who become resistant to medications or whatever have the ability to digest nylon due to a mutation that had caused a loss of function in a protein-degrading enzyme. "
If I understand this creationist, he is saying that even though the bacteria have gained the information to digest nylon it came at a cost of something else - so there was no gain in information.
I actually might be wrong on this, I have a habit of not understanding creationist claims.
Regarding the nylon eating bacteria, can anyone counter this...
"These bacteria, just like any other who become resistant to medications or whatever have the ability to digest nylon due to a mutation that had caused a loss of function in a protein-degrading enzyme. "
If I understand this creationist, he is saying that even though the bacteria have gained the information to digest nylon it came at a cost of something else - so there was no gain in information.
I actually might be wrong on this, I have a habit of not understanding creationist claims.
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
What he's actually referring to is that DNA was lost due to a deletion and this is what caused nylonase. It's a typical example of "so what???". Whether the beneficial mutation arose due to an insertion, deletion or a simple change is wholly irrelevant, as this example simply shows that beneficial mutations can, as a matter of fact, happen. It's also known as "moving the goalpost" à la "show me that a beneficial mutation can exist... no, it has to have come about by an insertion or duplication... no, you also have to dance around the building while balancing a banana on your nose".
There are other examples of beneficial mutations that arise through duplications (See points 4, 6 and 7) as well as insertions. (See points 5, 10 and the second point 5)
Does this answer your question?
thefusilier said:
What he's actually referring to is that DNA was lost due to a deletion and this is what caused nylonase. It's a typical example of "so what???". Whether the beneficial mutation arose due to an insertion, deletion or a simple change is wholly irrelevant, as this example simply shows that beneficial mutations can, as a matter of fact, happen. It's also known as "moving the goalpost" à la "show me that a beneficial mutation can exist... no, it has to have come about by an insertion or duplication... no, you also have to dance around the building while balancing a banana on your nose".
There are other examples of beneficial mutations that arise through duplications (See points 4, 6 and 7) as well as insertions. (See points 5, 10 and the second point 5)
Does this answer your question?
thefusilier
New Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
I think so. I totally appreciate the quick and simple answer though.
I admit it might help if I knew exactly what he was getting at. I still think he is claiming that for there to be new information there has to be a loss somewhere else. So because of that, organisms will never evolve or change... or something along those lines. His point about the loss of the "function in a protein-degrading enzyme" being some sort of evidence that although the bacteria can do something new, it can't do something it did before and that ultimately equates to something bad.
He then mentioned "it was bacteria and still is bacteria" - to which I wanted to punch him.
Inferno said:
I think so. I totally appreciate the quick and simple answer though.
I admit it might help if I knew exactly what he was getting at. I still think he is claiming that for there to be new information there has to be a loss somewhere else. So because of that, organisms will never evolve or change... or something along those lines. His point about the loss of the "function in a protein-degrading enzyme" being some sort of evidence that although the bacteria can do something new, it can't do something it did before and that ultimately equates to something bad.
He then mentioned "it was bacteria and still is bacteria" - to which I wanted to punch him.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
To be perfectly honest, until this creationist defines "loss of function" (i.e. loss of information), his claim cannot be proven either way. Depending on how one defines information, it can be argued that any mutation, even a deletion, would be a gain in information, because there are now new genes to work with. In addition, one can define information in such a way that DNA would not count as information.
This "loss of information" argument comes from a basic misunderstanding of DNA and information theory.
thefusilier said:
To be perfectly honest, until this creationist defines "loss of function" (i.e. loss of information), his claim cannot be proven either way. Depending on how one defines information, it can be argued that any mutation, even a deletion, would be a gain in information, because there are now new genes to work with. In addition, one can define information in such a way that DNA would not count as information.
This "loss of information" argument comes from a basic misunderstanding of DNA and information theory.
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
Many creationists I have talked with use "information" as a synonym for "bases". Only up until the point where they learn of insertions and duplications though. :lol:
he_who_is_nobody said:
Many creationists I have talked with use "information" as a synonym for "bases". Only up until the point where they learn of insertions and duplications though. :lol:
thefusilier
New Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
Thanks guys for your answers.
They were probably pretty trivial to you but I appreciate you answering them.
BTW - the creationist never responded. Not yet anyways.
Thanks guys for your answers.
They were probably pretty trivial to you but I appreciate you answering them.
BTW - the creationist never responded. Not yet anyways.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
What exactly did you say to the creationist?
thefusilier said:
What exactly did you say to the creationist?
Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw
Much more interesting case of evolution, at least in my opinion. plastic-eating bacteria.
he_who_is_nobody said:
Much more interesting case of evolution, at least in my opinion. plastic-eating bacteria.